Wisconsin and Ohio... such important swing states in the upcoming 2012 elections.

Did it not occur to them to not spend the money? Why the insatiable urge to spend? My mother used to say, "That money is burning a hole in your pocket." But that can't be what's going on here, because they don't have any money.

I notice garage mentions this in the other thread and suggests that people will be upset that the money went somewhere else.

I think it's likely that people will be upset.

I think there is no basis to conclude that they will be upset with their governors for turning down the federal funds, however. (BTW, were these funds loans or attached to future never-ending obligations that the state would be responsible for paying?) It's more likely that voters in Wisconsin and Ohio will be even more angry at the federal government than before. Here they do something fiscally responsible and they get spit on for it.

what I found amazing was that when they say NY got $7.3 million more of $1,2000 million that WI and OH passed on, it tells me the original grants were total BS.

Tell me you are spending 10 billion on a serious project for serious high speed rail from say Boston to NYC and i'll believe that is a worth while demonstration. giving Florida a billion is flat out pissing money away.

Damn Wisconsin. If the Badgers make it to the Rose Bowl I swear I'l boo them for sixty minutes. How dare you high and mighty fools refuse those high speed rail funds! Ingrates!

As a California taxpayer, I am outraged by this. Coincidentally, it was announced last week that our bankrupt state is proceeding with a high speed rail project. Since the intital section of the proposed rail line is a railway from a nowhere town to another nowhere town in California's Central Valley, I can only conclude it wasn't the enormous volume of rail traffic that drove this idiocy but, more likely, the extra funds the Feds got back from Wisconsin and Ohio. Now, I, as a California taxpayer, will be required to fund the non-Fed funded portions of this boondoggle for politicians, developers and greenies. Thanks a lot, Wisconsin.

If people need to get from Milwaukee to Madison at 90 mph, I have an idea: Let Wisconsin designate the inside lane of I-90 as a high speed carpool lane, and designate pickup points in both Madison and Milwaukee. Anyone carrying another person in their car will be entitled to drive 90 mph between the two cities. Problem solved.

And why would anybody need to get from Milwaukee to Madison at 90MPH, anyways? Is this a commonplace scenario in your world, where a 90-minute trip instead of a 60-minute trip is the difference between utopia and catastrophe?

And how would this train have even addressed this hypothetical scenario, given that it topped out at around 75 MPH?

FDR was a master at using federal money to reward friends and punish enemies in the states, leading to widely disparate spending in terrible economic times. Oftentimes the very poor lost out to those in already-wealthy (but FDR-friendly)states.

Yet despite all that spending, no new jobs were created, not back in the 30s.

And not now.

Wisconsin lost nothing in refusing the printing press money. The nation has lost, however, because no one will take the play Monopoly money we're making, or it'll be worth just a third or a quarter what it is now.

Even now, commodity inflation is here, taking a bigger chunk of the grocery bill every week..

"He's keeping the other 3/4 of the stimulus money sent to Wisconsin. Shouldn't he have sent it all back? Why would he keep so much of it I wonder. Well, I know why."

This argument reminds me of the argument against birth control that goes... preventing pregnancy is wrong so all birth control is wrong, every bit as wrong as abortion. (The Catholics are more sophisticated... I still don't agree with them but I'm not talking about the Catholic argument here. I heard this one from an independent Baptist.) Logically, I figured, if it's wrong to do anything that keeps conception from happening then certainly the only moral thing is for every fertile person to have reproductive sex from the earliest moment of fertility, no matter what.

This is what garage's argument sounds like to me.

Because the state returns or refuses some federal funds it *must* refuse all federal funds. Logic? If this is logic, then accepting federal funds ought not to be limited. On what basis does one accept only what is offered? Why these limited funds? If the feds provide any funding at all why not provide it all?

Why not?

The answer if that the initial argument was flawed. There is no logical problem whatsoever with refusing some funds without refusing them all.

* What does high-speed service mean - how fast will the trains go? * Where will the stations be located? * When will service start? * What schedule will be offered - how many trips per day? * How much will a ticket cost?

What does high-speed service mean - how fast will the trains go?

Initial service on the Milwaukee to Madison route will provide speeds up to 79 miles per hour. Once all of the track and signal upgrades are completed to allow high-speed trains to safely operate, speeds will reach up to 110 miles per hour.

No, it isn't. It only appears to be a stupid decision because you can't or won't accept that some people - not yourself, obviously - make decisions out of principles beyond sheer venality. *Even if* we accept the argument that this would be slightly beneficial, on net, for Wisconsin (which I don't accept; how many federal programs can you name that cost as much or less than projected? - but assuming for the sake of argument) - it still wouldn't provide a benefit commensurate with the cost to the rest of the nation, and ought to be opposed out of simple patriotic duty. A foreign concept to liberals like yourself, I know, but real enough to the average American.

"And why would anybody need to get from Milwaukee to Madison at 90MPH, anyways? Is this a commonplace scenario in your world, where a 90-minute trip instead of a 60-minute trip is the difference between utopia and catastrophe?"

I remember, in 1971, racing a buddy in his GTO for 90 miles from Philly to Wildwood to get one of the scarce parking spaces for the weekend. Somehow I beat him in my 1959 Ford Fairlane by a few blocks and a minute or so. And we wondered [big whoop] what will we do now with the 15 minutes or so we saved by racing and breaking the speed limits.

"As a result of this action, Wisconsin is on the hook for well over $100 million in costs."

Bullshit!

Let's see the contracts. As a point of reference, every federal contract has a termination for convenience clause, which let's the government off the hook except for expenses incurred by the contractor.

Even if not, damages for breach of contract on not "the face value" of the contract amount. Let's get real.

Then this train ought to be self-financing. What is the interest of the average American in subsidizing the transportation of someone for whom 30 minutes is of such critical importance? Why can't that person pay for it?

Really? Like autos which depreciate the moment you drive off the dealer lot?

Or like highways that we subsidize?

how about the massive and bloody subsidy for oil? All the costs for military intervention and wars to keep the oil flowing? Conservatives ignore that - they have no principles (unless it earns interest).

And we wondered [big whoop] what will we do now with the 15 minutes or so we saved by racing and breaking the speed limits.

Well, if you take the train from Madison to Chicago -- and the spur to Madison was an extension of a very popular Milwaukee to Chicago route -- you don't have to pay for parking, which in Chicago can be kinda onerous. So not only do you have some extra time (maybe -- not sure how the drive time/train time Madison to Chicago compare, I suspect it depends on the time of day), but you have extra cash in pocket as well. You've spent it on a train ticket, true. But you've avoided the cost of your car and those wretched tolls on I90 in Illinois.

All of those things have some marginal value, but I have seen no persuasive argument that an 80-mile train line from Milwaukee to Madison will actually produce any significant amount of those things.

For perspective: this project would cost more, adjusted for inflation than the HOOVER DAM. Do you really believe it will be of as much benefit to the citizens of the United States as the HOOVER DAM? I don't, and I don't believe most people do either.

Well, if you take the train from Madison to Chicago -- and the spur to Madison was an extension of a very popular Milwaukee to Chicago route -- you don't have to pay for parking, which in Chicago can be kinda onerous. So not only do you have some extra time (maybe -- not sure how the drive time/train time Madison to Chicago compare, I suspect it depends on the time of day), but you have extra cash in pocket as well.

So the citizens of the United States get to subsidize the ability of a few Madisonians to not have to pay for parking?

Serious question: why not just directly reimburse those same people for their parking expenses? It would cost a fraction of the price.

Another serious question: isn't the EXACT SAME benefit already provided by the existing bus service?

The government subsidizes other sorts of transportation therefore... it must subsidize all transportation?

What other sorts of transportation is the federal government failing to subsidize? Government must subsidize ALL transportation, no matter how little used, how inefficient, or how pricey and no matter if other methods of transportation are available.

As a result of this action, Wisconsin is on the hook for well over $100 million in costs.

Why do you keep repeating that outright lie.

The federal government broke the contract so Wisconsin isn't on the hook for anything. In other words, Walker dared Obama and La Hood to enforce the terms of the contract Doyle signed and they backed down.

It can be. In fact, we do this all the time. If one market option is clearly preferred without subsidies, and we have already decided we want to provide subsidies, it often makes sense to subsidize the most cost-efficient solution that the market has already come up with. This is the case with the interstate highways, as passenger rail was already losing heavily to the automobile before the interstate was built. You act like the automobile simply popped into existence in 1956.

Haven't had time to read the whole thread, so maybe somebody's made this point already.

Gov. Doyle issued a statement decrying the loss of HSR. Seems to me, there is nobody more responsible for this result than Doyle himself. The state's finances are in dreadful shape. We are not getting HSR because we can not afford it. And the reason we are in such bad shape is squarely on his shoulders. Yes, we are in a recession, but there are well managed states that are not in bad shape.

Also, the "free market" requires the government to fund my idea of a chair lift between Milwaukee and Madison and a daily dirigible route, because people might want to ride a chairlift or a blimp and denying those people a blimp-ride on government's dime is contrary to free market principals.

There's a lot traffic congestion between Milwaukee and Madison? And your analysis ignores the time to drive to the train station, check your luggage, board, detrain, pick up luggage, and rent a car (or flag down a taxi,which is an additional out-of-pocket expense).

Reduced air pollution? All high speed rail is powered by electricity, and in the US that electricity is predominantly generated from coal. All you do is move the pollution from the vicinity of the road to the downwind vicinity of the power plant.

Reduce oil consumption? Is it better to use coal instead?

Local economic development for rail, including light rail, is concentrated near the stations. Local economic development for high speed highways is more diffuse. If you want to argue that economic development near the stations is a good thing, then fine. But why not simply invest in those areas directly? Why spend money on carefully-engineered tracks, catenary, power substations, etc.?

And if you think high speed trains are inherently safe, then you need to read up on Eschede. 35% fatalities, 30% severely injured, and 35% minor injuries.

Improved freight rail shipping? Well the Acela in the Northeast Corridor shares tracks with regular freight, but the main premise of high speed rail is that they do not share tracks with slow freight.

@FLS, can you confirm that high speed rail will not share tracks with freight?

And as far as increased mobility choices is concerned, well, you got me there. The good folks of Madison and Milwaukee will have another option to consider. At an annual cost of $7.5M (unless their congressional delegation can persuade Uncle Sugar to pick up most of it).

"It was just expressing frustration from a very frustrated Member." — Rep.Shelley Berkley (D-NV), [characterizing] the remarks of a fellow Democratic lawmaker who said " Fuck the president " during a Caucus meeting concerning the tax Compromise.

Baloney. It would cost taxpayers anywhere between $1 or .13 cents per year. Walker has no problem using billions from the stimulus on projects happening all over the state. If he made his decision on principle it would be one thing. It was never ever about the money. He pandered to the lowest common denominator in a cheap anti-city vote getting scheme to get elected. What a douchebag.

AlphaLiberal said...No, Ann, that is not what is going on here. You have not been following this at all, have you?

All you do is repeat conservative talking points, without stopping to think or understand. You are consumed by your hatred of liberals.

Wisconsin state government has lost a grant for $823 million and will only receive $2 million.

As a result of this action, Wisconsin is on the hook for well over $100 million in costs.

What is going on here is the "Oppose Anything Obama does" mentality. If Obama is for it, Republicans are against it. (Obama's tax capitulation notwithstanding).

12/9/10 4:38 PM"

Unless the feds are going to pay 100% of the construction costs and pay for the operational loss in perpetuity the new governor already did the people of his state a great service.

Where you come up with your figures I don't know but if you factor in all of the fuel taxes, tolls, car taxes the roads themselves are pretty much covered by their users. Air traffic control can be privatized and most of the subsidized air traffic costs are due to the folly of politicians like the late and unlamented John Murtha who squandered federal funds for airports in very marginal markets. The major hubs more than pay their way.

A) It's perhaps ironic that the train gets cancelled and the governor declares it a victory on a day when I-94 and I-90 are messes due to weather.

B) If the train getting built was the worst outcome (I don't believe that, but I'll roll with it), the circumstances of the cancellation are the second worst outcome.

With the cancellation, the State of Wisconsin gets stuck with a bill for $71 million for the upgrades to the Hiawatha train maintenance shed and Milwaukee station. We're also potentially stuck with the bill for completing incomplete rail upgrades on State owned track for freight that would have been covered in the plan. So, since the money is going elsewhere, there's no savings to the Wisconsin taxpayer, no infrastructure upgrades (rail or otherwise), and Wisconsinites have to come up with over $12/person to cover the bills.

A) It's perhaps ironic that the train gets cancelled and the governor declares it a victory on a day when I-94 and I-90 are messes due to weather.

Irrelevant. A train carrying perhaps 1,000 people a day between Madison and Milwaukee would have zero practical effect on interstate traffic. And many of the train riders would've ridden the bus had the train not been available.

A thousand or more people on more than a few days a year adds up. But, please, spare me the engineering claims. There's an engineering report out there, but this has never been about engineering. Pro or con. If people wanted to talk engineering, we'd be talking about the actual details of the service plan by HNTB. And that's never been part of the conversation. It's been about campaign ads featuring Scott Walker and sound bytes.

And, we can argue over the definition of a sunk cost. So far, the decision to cancel the project costs Wisconsin taxpayers more than if they had gone ahead and built it. And that's unfortunate for Wisconsin taxpayers.

The real issue with the project was the operating costs. And for someone who likes to talk about public/private partnerships, Walker fell down on exploring funding sources for that. The Madison business community was pretty gung ho in favor, along with the City of Madison and Dane County, and funding for operating was never really discussed.

And, we can argue over the definition of a sunk cost. So far, the decision to cancel the project costs Wisconsin taxpayers more than if they had gone ahead and built it. And that's unfortunate for Wisconsin taxpayers.

The kid's in Ohio and Wisconsin know their parents don't have much to go around, so when the tooth fairy left them a couple of bucks, their eyes got wide! Their imaginations took over, and they had good dreams the next night.

But morning comes. The Ohio kids and the Wisconsin kids appreciate all their parents tried to do to make their lives better, and so they return the money to the tooth fairy, and their parents, in kind.

I think my alternative could work. We're all familiar with the concept of the university ride board, right? People going to Milwaukee can post their departure date and time on an internet board, and riders can contact them (or vice versa).

I think my alternative could work. We're all familiar with the concept of the university ride board, right? People going to Milwaukee can post their departure date and time on an internet board, and riders can contact them (or vice versa).

How about this alternative: Go here and buy yourself a bus ticket for $23.

For the math challenged. As a federal project, the cost per person for Wisconsin taxpayers was $810 million / 312 million people = $2.6/person.

With the train shed and station upgrades scheduled at $71 million, scheduled, and removed from Federal funding is $71 million / 5.6 million people in Wisconsin = $12.67/person.

Not counting other costs that may still be out there. Does Walker leave the State owned tracks incomplete?

The $810 million wasn't returned to the taxpayers. There is no savings.

The capital costs were never an issue, it was the operating costs. In the short run, Wisconsin taxpayers lose. Walker wasn't able to divert the money to other infrastructure projects in Wisconsin, which I believe was his endgame, and it's a "victory" that costs the taxpayers. We need less of those.

The trip from Madison to Milwaukee was never the engineering point of the project. The trip from Madison to General Mitchell Airport and Chicago was the engineering point. Along with freight upgrades, crossing upgrades, improvements to the Empire Builder service, and potential to tie into Minneapolis on a more frequent than once a day service.

But, again, the debate was never about what the plan actually was. And Barrett and Doyle are as much to blame as anyone else.

Along with the silly idea that transportation projects are jobs programs. The primary, and some would say only, goal of a transportation project is to improve the efficiency of moving goods and people. You start talking about these other benefits before talking about the primary purpose of the project and it's no wonder people think you're selling them snake oil.

Which magical fairy is going to pay the $71 million (probably more) that Wisconsin taxpayers are stuck with with the removal of projects from Federal funding? I get no savings from the Federal funding going elsewhere. And there's a $71 million bill to the State of Wisconsin. That money has to come from somewhere, and it wasn't a direct Wisconsin obligation yesterday.

Again, Wisconsin taxpayers need less "victories" like today which add $71 million to the State budget.

Jay, are you suggesting that Wisconsin does not send more $$ to the Federal Government than it receives, or that there are states in the south who do not receive more $$ than they send to the Federal Government?

I'm all for reducing the Federal debt. I've proposed actual things to do that make sense. Gutting maintenance of infrastructure is short-sighted IMO.

I do. Do you understand the difference between State and Federal projects?

There's been no reduction in the Federal project. It's just been shifted to another state.

Meanwhile, a scheduled project, the Hiawatha maintenance shed and station upgrades, is still on the schedule. And those projects cost $71 million. Only, instead of being split over all 50 states as a Federal project, the costs will now been borne solely by Wisconsin taxpayers. And it's doubtful that these projects will be stopped. After all, Walker has publically proclaimed that he supports the Hiawatha.

$71 million in obligations have been added to the State of Wisconsin budget as of today. There are potentially more costs, like finishing the state owned freight tracks that were started under the project. That's not a good thing for Wisconsin taxpayers.

If the whole project had been cancelled, reduced, reconfigured, etc. that might have been fine. But, at best, this substitutes a cost of long term operating for a short term hit. Either way, I can do with less hits to the pocketbook.

Jay, are you suggesting that Wisconsin does not send more $$ to the Federal Government than it receives, or that there are states in the south who do not receive more $$ than they send to the Federal Government?

Collection and distribution of Federal funds is broadly progressive; that is, wealthier states tend to be net contributors and poorer states tend to be net beneficiaries.

I can't speak for Jay, but I will say I've never understood liberals who bitch about the Feds taking their state's money and giving it to someone else. Isn't that what liberalism is all about? You should be thrilled that they're doing this.

This thread is a great illustration of the fact that people don't really dislike pork barrel projects, they just dislike other people's pork barrel projects.

Well, there was a competition for this money, so presumably -- who knows, really -- the project here was in some ways better than in other states, where the money is going to now. The money is going to spent -- Congress has said so. You can argue that it's unwise, and I won't disagree. But if it's not spent where some maybe pre-ordained competition said it was best to be spent, that seems doubly stupid.

I don't buy the Walker Campaign slogan that this would end up being a huge drain on state taxpayers. Any infrastructure project like this will generate development, and that brings jobs and money -- to some. I'd be more inclined to believe his sincerity if he was against it from day 1 -- meaning when TT was all for it. It seems like things went bad for many Republicans when Doyle came on board as a supporter. And I'll echo what Robert M (?) said -- the problem with Barrett and Doyle is they let Walker drive the debate and frame the project as "just" high speed rail from Madison to Milwaukee. The loss of infrastructure maintenance that was part of the awarded monies will be a big detriment to rail transportation in s. Wisconsin.

What would you expect from electing a college dropout to governor who left wreckage everywhere he's been.

No, the real problem is you leftard motherfuckers who insist on dreaming up bullshit ways to spend money needlessly on things that most people do not want. Not because you leftard motherfuckers think they are good, but because you believe it's good for the rest of us who don't want things like that. Even if you believe these things are good, no one can convince you otherwise that they are not. That's the mental deficit that you leftard motherfuckers operate from and in return create monetary deficits to prop up ideas of wish fulfillment. Fuck you, motherfucker and that fucking whore you call your mother for birthing the leftard waste that is you.

Because now and again you take fairly extreme positions, and not in the conservative direction. (And, no, I'm not going to prowl through old Althouse blog posts to give you examples. That would be boring. I don't like being bored.)

I like to think I occupy the left side of center. Maybe I am delusional.

Here are just some of my non-liberal credentials: I would never take a gun from my hunting friends, although as a teen I did wickedly irresponsible things with a .22, but no one was killed, by the grace of God, so perhaps a gun should have been taken away from me. But not from anyone else. I think the Dept Of Education is a crock -- at both Federal and State levels. Abolish them. Ditto Homeland Security.

OTOH, I freely admit to thinking banning abortion -- that is, making it illegal -- is foolish, because making abortion illegal won't ban it. Some will claim that's a liberal viewpoint, I think it's just unhappily realistic. I have no problem with my Gay friends getting hitched. Why should the Govt care? Gays should be able to serve in the military just like anyone else. Maybe that's why people think I'm liberal.

But I'm a cheap SOB so I'd like the Govt to be as well. Like I said the other day, if every Government manager can't run his/her department with 85% of the funds they got this year, they should be replaced with someone who can. Is that liberal?

Well, I always thought of you as fairly liberal, though certainly not out in Robert Cook land. Perhaps it's the Madison brand image;-)

Anyway, I've seen the same complaint from a number of soak the rich big-gov types on this blog, so consider the observation directed there if you don't feel it applies to you. They want the Feds to spread the wealth around, but bitch to high heaven if their favorite state ends up being a net contributor.

"... you gave up only $2.60 so why the crocodiles tears about this day after day after day? "

Because the State economy of Wisconsin stood to gain $144 per person in return.

I'd agree that there is a legitimate debate to be had about Federal and State spending. And I agree that both spend too much. But, I also think that the discussion of Federal spending needs to be held at the Federal level with the pain spread around. Playing the martyr with Federal spending is all well and good, except that the problem is that the martyr gets killed in the end.

And despite what Walker will say publicly, he's got to be disappointed with the endgame. Yes, Walker was for the train being killed, but his #1 goal all along was to divert that $810 million to other infrastructure projects that he felt were a higher priority. He didn't accomplish that and that's a hole in the State economy and budget that's going to make his job tougher no matter how much of a victory he tries to spin it as. Plus the US DOT stuck him with another $71 million in costs.

And he still has to go to the US DOT to ask for funds for the Zoo Interchange, I-90, and the Hoan Bridge after picking a public fight with the Secretary.

Like the war on Iraq? The only reason most people wanted it was that the Bush administration told us a pack of lies.

Yes, actually, maybe you didn't notice in your drugged-addled haze, but the Republicans were roundly thrashed at the polls in no small part because of this. But see the Democrats misunderstood; they thought the important part of the electoral message of "stop spending so much money on wars" was "on wars," when really it was "stop spending so much money." And now they are getting thrashed too.

I am sorry to inform you that Walker will win this issue, because the majority of Wisconsinites are loyal Americans, and they do not want to see the federal government waste its money on a boondoggle just because they would get a tiny benefit from it. As such, the honorable thing to do is demur, and if residents in other states have no honor - well, I do not doubt their disloyalty will bring them to ignoble ends in due course.

Jay, are you suggesting that Wisconsin does not send more $$ to the Federal Government than it receives, or that there are states in the south who do not receive more $$ than they send to the Federal Government?

Yes, yes I am.

Mainly because "states" do not send taxes to the federal government.

And you have no data that could possibly support your silly assertion.

Meanwhile, a scheduled project, the Hiawatha maintenance shed and station upgrades, is still on the schedule. And those projects cost $71 million. Only, instead of being split over all 50 states as a Federal project, the costs will now been borne solely by Wisconsin taxpayers.

Why should someone in Virginia pay for the Hiawatha maintenance shed?

Again, I have to emphasize: 810 million would have been federal money doesn't mean it was magical. You paid for that in your taxes, too.

former law student said... Like the war on Iraq? The only reason most people wanted it was that the Bush administration told us a pack of lies.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

If you need more quotes from Democrats with their lies about WMDs in Iraq, let me know, because I have more.

I'm coming at this as Wisconsin resident. It's hard to put into words just how badly the GOP fucked us in this state. One would hope a recall petition is being drawn up for this criminally stupid decision.

2. Conservatives strain out gnats and swallow camels: We will have spent two orders of magnitude more on the Iraq war -- including the continuing cost of veteran mental and physical health care and the continued US presence in Iraq -- than on high speed rail.

3. With all of America's crying infrastructure needs: worn out water and gas mains, overtaxed storm and sanitary sewers, 50-80 year old bridges and highways -- spending money to rebuild Iraq is the greatest folly. We used to plan for the future, now we can't even keep up with the past.

And this series of quotes was priceless:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

Hint: They were justifying something big the US and UK accomplished in 1998.

Bad engineering, manufacturing, and operational judgment. Reminds me of I was working across the street from O'Hare when AA 191 took off. We all ran outside to watch the cloud after that DC-10 hit the ground. Two hundred seventy-one passengers and crew, most dreaming of the beach at Waikiki, were killed, along with two people on the ground. Management allowed maintenance crews to use a shortcut they had devised.

I'm coming at this as Wisconsin resident. It's hard to put into words just how badly the GOP fucked us in this state. One would hope a recall petition is being drawn up for this criminally stupid decision.

It's hard to put into words because it doesn't make any sense. "Beggar thy neighbor" is poor public policy regardless of whether you are the neighbor or not.

I believe trains are great-in the right places. For example on the east coast from Portland to DC=perfect, lots of people use them and they are convenient-and there is a large population and it is a fab area. I use them constantly from Boston-NYC-Providence-DC etc.

Does anyone believe that the proposed system Madison to Milwaukee will cost "only" $810M? Gluck!

Last plan was for the route to go from downtown north to the airport thence east with stops at Watertown and possibly other burgs. The train would have only short stretches to reach high speeds. I suspect one could hop in their car in Madison and beat the train to Milwaukee most days AND save a ton o' money and hassle (parking, rentals, etc.).

Potential development would impact areas in and near stations - as if downtown Madison and the airport could use a bunch more station-bound traffic, likely the same in Milwaukee.

Passenger rail would likely be a money-loser (evidence: See all but one or two systems worldwide). Freight can pay its way, but we already have roadbed and track for that which could use some bucks for upgrades and maintenance. Spending the money on HSR is sexy but ultimately it's not only wasteful but counterproductive in regard to WI economy.